| 19th November 2006 01:05 PM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
quote:
lotsajizz wrote:
Change the nationality and experiences referenced to Central Europe mid-century and Riffy's cited speech is interchangable with one of der Fuehrers circa 1944. And NO, that is NOT calling you a Nazi so don't fall back on your usual strawman.....you're just citing one!
[Edited by lotsajizz]
Jizzy the "speech" is a transcript from Mark Levin's radio show. How you can find any similarities at all with Nazism is beyond me?! Where did Hitler ever claim that he was for individual rights? Or for that matter when did Adolph ever defend the roll of churches and synagogues in German society? Never to my knowledge. No,your standard Nazi rant does not jibe at all with the text from Levin. He is pointing out the right's of the individual,and the roll of an overreaching central goverment. Lord knows that Nazism was all about an overreaching central goverment. Just as Communism,Socialism,and yes,Liberalism are all about. However,I commend you for trying in vain to blur the lines. Did you even read it? Or did you just read it,and dismiss it out of hand ala BJ? Because that would reek of a certain type of elitism that BJ seems to be unaware that he exhibits in every post.
Riffy |
| 19th November 2006 01:17 PM |
|
|
| lotsajizz |
---to be assured 'what goes around comes around'
you reap
now
you sow
LOL!!! |
| 19th November 2006 01:38 PM |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
That Levin article - like all articles like that - is pre-loaded front piss - he takes all the positions he thinks he wants, draws drastic conclusions about the opposite, and then declare himself the winner. I'be seen many "liberals" do the same.
This is Limbaugh Oxy territory - i.e., please, please, please confirm for me what I want to believe in the first place. Thanks Benny, I knew I wa right all along.
And NONE of this hides that fact that there is a serious debate as to whether George Walker Bush III - but NO standard, except idiot ones, a conservative - is the most incompetent and incapable president of the last 50-60 years. Only incredible bias, or lack of brains yourself, can hold one out on the conclusion for long. |
| 19th November 2006 01:58 PM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
quote:
lotsajizz wrote:
---to be assured 'what goes around comes around'
you reap
now
you sow
LOL!!!
Oh there can be no doubt that Republicans made some huge mistakes,and yes,they are now reaping what they sowed. But what did they sow? They completely ignored their base and it cost them many votes. Remember this the Democrats did not get voted in,so much as Republican(incumbants) got voted out. Plus the Dems that did win were mostly "blue dog" Dems. Which is to say they are of a conservative bend. I truly wish that the partisan bullshit fighting should come to an end in DC,but I'm afraid that that will be the way things go from now on.
All I want is for my family to be protected and to deny shit organizations like the ACLU from trying to grant every goddamned terrorist in the world US Constitutional rights! Is that too much to ask!? Are we so goddamned PCified and pussyified that we actually are afraid that we are gonna "look bad" to the world at large?! Are we suppossed voluntarily bend over and let radical Islam shove their breed of hate up our asses just so we look like we "care" and are "compassionate". I want the fuckers dead and their brand of Islam destroyed,and I don't give two shits if that makes me look like a bad guy. Roosevelt would not have allowed the ACLU,and their ilk,to define terrorists rights! Nor would Truman have! Lincoln likewise. We are trying in vain to appease these radical asshats and meanwhile they just laugh at our pathetic attempts to appear morally rightous while they continue to blow people up by the hundreds and kidnap an behead innocents. Where is the liberal outrage about that shit?! Why is the world not rallying to the point of shutting these monsters down?! This will become a world war one day. That will happen! I strongly recommend everyone watch the documentry "Obsession". It will scare the ever loving shit out of you! This stuff should be mandatory veiwing for everyone.
Sorry for being rather all over the place with this post,but it really is the reason that I have such a problem with liberalism. Liberals seem to think that Bush,Rove,and Chenney are the real enemies. As opossed to the radical fuckers that want us all dead! God knows that Bush has made some huge mistakes. Namely in the plan,or lack there of,of dealing with Iraq after the fall of Saddam. However,I know that he understands the nature of this enemy,and I often think that many of Bush's detractors just seem to gloss over the very real visciousness of Islam for the sole purpose of slamming Bush. Time to refocus our attention where it belongs. Because one thing that we all know is that these radicals are a patient lot. They will sit back and watch us destroy each other politically and then sneak in with a dirty bomb,bio/cem weapon,or some equally dangerous WMD and then we will be left looking like ignorant fools for having not delt with them with the overbearing massive amount of force that we should be dealing these fuckers on a daily basis.<----Is that a run on sentance or what?!
Riffy |
| 19th November 2006 02:03 PM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
quote:
sirmoonie wrote:
That Levin article - like all articles like that - is pre-loaded front piss - he takes all the positions he thinks he wants, draws drastic conclusions about the opposite, and then declare himself the winner. I'be seen many "liberals" do the same.
This is Limbaugh Oxy territory - i.e., please, please, please confirm for me what I want to believe in the first place. Thanks Benny, I knew I wa right all along.
And NONE of this hides that fact that there is a serious debate as to whether George Walker Bush III - but NO standard, except idiot ones, a conservative - is the most incompetent and incapable president of the last 50-60 years. Only incredible bias, or lack of brains yourself, can hold one out on the conclusion for long.
Yeah Moonie we get it. You hate Bush. Geeesh! Oh,and you're a real conservative! Yeah,right! The Levin article perfectly defines what a true conservative feels,thinks,and acts on. You,of course,know that though don't you? I mean you are a conservative right? Funny then that you always slam conservatives? Strange if you ask me. Yes,I know,Bush is not a true conservative,but given the choice of Bush or Kerry I would vote for Bush ten more times! How do like them fucking apples!? I guess I'm not as smart as you though right? That is,afterall,what you keep going on about.
Riffy |
| 19th November 2006 02:05 PM |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
quote:
Riffhard wrote:
I often think that many of Bush's detractors just seem to gloss over the very real visciousness of Islam for the sole purpose of slamming Bush. Time to refocus our attention where it belongs.
Riffy
Its the opposite - we understand the visciousness of Islam, and we need to get George Walker Bush III out so it can be addressed by someone who speaks English.
"It a different kind of love Georgie.....now show me some shish-kabob, baby."
 |
| 19th November 2006 02:07 PM |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
quote:
Riffhard wrote:
Yeah Moonie we get it. You hate Bush. Geeesh! Oh,and you're a real conservative! Yeah,right! The Levin article perfectly defines what a true conservative feels,thinks,and acts on. You,of course,know that though don't you? I mean you are a conservative right? Funny then that you always slam conservatives? Strange if you ask me. Yes,I know,Bush is not a true conservative,but given the choice of Bush or Kerry I would vote for Bush ten more times! How do like them fucking apples!? I guess I'm not as smart as you though right? That is,afterall,what you keep going on about.
Riffy
Please provide a list of all the conservatives that I have slammed. I'm not aware of any. |
| 19th November 2006 02:15 PM |
|
|
| lotsajizz |
quote:
Riffhard wrote:
Yeah Moonie we get it. You hate Bush. Geeesh! Oh,and you're a real conservative! Yeah,right! Riffy
He is. The rest of you are just statists.
You left Goldwater behind LOOOOONG ago.... |
| 19th November 2006 02:16 PM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
quote:
sirmoonie wrote:
Please provide a list of all the conservatives that I have slammed. I'm not aware of any.
Well let's just start with Mark Levin. The guy was Edwin Meeses' Cheif of Staff afterall. He is an originalist and he is full blown proud conservative. The transcript that I posted was an excerpt from his show. What part of it do not agree with? Liberals want the goverment to be much bigger. True? Yes! Liberals want redistribution of wealth. True? Huh,duh! The liberals want America do deny our Judeo/Christian origins. True? Of course! Liberals are lobbying for US Constitutional rights for terrorists. True? You're goddamned right they are! Every other topic he touches on is true as well.
He also defines the core beliefs of conservatism,but somehow you dismissed that as if he wasn't speaking for you. So,I ask again,are you really a conservative? Or are you just saying that you are so your hatered of Bush plays better?
Riffy |
| 19th November 2006 02:23 PM |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
quote:
Riffhard wrote:
Well let's just start with Mark Levin. The guy was Edwin Meeses' Cheif of Staff afterall. He is an originalist and he is full blown proud conservative. The transcript that I posted was an excerpt from his show. What part of it do not agree with? Liberals want the goverment to be much bigger. True? Yes! Liberals want redistribution of wealth. True? Huh,duh! The liberals want America do deny our Judeo/Christian origins. True? Of course! Liberals are lobbying for US Constitutional rights for terrorists. True? You're goddamned right they are! Every other topic he touches on is true as well.
He also defines the core beliefs of conservatism,but somehow you dismissed that as if he wasn't speaking for you. So,I ask again,are you really a conservative? Or are you just saying that you are so your hatered of Bush plays better?
Riffy
I didn't read it - I'm seen dozens of those liberal v. conservative wish lists, I thought they were cool in high school when they were pro-my side, now I think they are stupid no matter who is characterizing themselves are victors. Reader's Digest is more interesting.
I barely know who Mark Levin is, so I have not slammed him or his beliefs.
Now post that list of conservatives I have slammed - I dares ya! |
| 19th November 2006 02:25 PM |
|
|
| lotsajizz |
quote:
Riffhard wrote:
Well let's just start with Mark Levin. The guy was Edwin Meeses' Cheif of Staff afterall. He is an originalist and he is full blown proud conservative. Riffy
Well, that's problem number one right there--he is not a conservative at all but rather a far right wing statist--learn and understand the difference. He has no concept of the Founding Fathers and original intent, instead substituting a right wing agenda that is a lot more far off from 'original intent' than that suggested by any 'liberal' out there!
Cazart!!
|
| 19th November 2006 02:30 PM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
quote:
lotsajizz wrote:
He is. The rest of you are just statists.
You left Goldwater behind LOOOOONG ago....
Hey Jizzy I am a Reagan conservative,but unfortunatly nobody in the Republican party is heeding Reagan's call to true conservatism. I would vote for Reagan's corspe over just about any of today's Democrats though. Both parties are devoid of any real real leadership right now. Though,I must say,that I feel that the Republicans have a better bench than the Dems do at this point. Trust me when I say,that that's not saying much! I just feel that the Dems have been taken over by the fringe left. Pelosi is a joke! Murtha is,and has been,on the take for a very long time. He is Mr. Kickback/Earmark! Don't even get me started about Ted Kennedy! The Democrats have abandoned many of the very principles that their once great party has stood for over the years. JFK believed in a strong military and low taxes. Does that sound like anyone in today's Democrat Party? No. They threw out Leiberman for one reason alone. He believes that we must win in Iraq! For that reason alone he was dumped! That's crazy! He has one of the most liberal voting records in the entire senate! Yet he's still not liberal enough for today's Dems. Or,more to the point,he's not liberal enough for today's Democrat money peeps,like Soros.
Riffy |
| 19th November 2006 02:34 PM |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
I don't think we have ever had a President who believed in big government and spending money as a solution to everything, as George Walker Bush III - and after his failed and ill-conceived experiment (the the extent that fool can conceive anything) with everything Big, I doubt we ever will again. |
| 19th November 2006 02:38 PM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
quote:
lotsajizz wrote:
Well, that's problem number one right there--he is not a conservative at all but rather a far right wing statist--learn and understand the difference. He has no concept of the Founding Fathers and original intent, instead substituting a right wing agenda that is a lot more far off from 'original intent' than that suggested by any 'liberal' out there!
Cazart!!
LOL! Mark Levin is considered one of the greatest minds on Constitutional Law period. That is from both sides of the political spectrum by the way. He is absolutly a true conservative to the bone. Read his book Men In Black,and then tell me has no concept of original intent or the Founding Fathers. The book is already required reading in several law schools for this very reason. Love him or hate him,you can not deny his understanding of Constitutional Law and it's place in history. He knows it like the back of his hand!<----Stones' reference!
Riffy |
| 19th November 2006 02:42 PM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
quote:
sirmoonie wrote:
I don't think we have ever had a President who believed in big government and spending money as a solution to everything, as George Walker Bush III - and after his failed and ill-conceived experiment (the the extent that fool can conceive anything) with everything Big, I doubt we ever will again.
Maybe you need to reflect on Hillary Care (1994) for a moment Moonie! Huh,correct me if I'm wrong,but that plan is tantamount to Socialism,and it's absolutly all about Big Goverment and the redistribution of wealth! She is now threatening to trot that shit out again,and she's the hands down front runner for the Democrat nominee in 2008. Food for thought.
Riffy |
| 19th November 2006 04:13 PM |
|
|
| lotsajizz |
quote:
Riffhard wrote:
The book is already required reading in several law schools for this very reason.
LOL!!! Maybe in Utah!!
Pray tell, riffy, your legal educational experience....
[Edited by lotsajizz] |
| 19th November 2006 05:53 PM |
|
|
| rasputin56 |
So, are the snowflakes safe now?
"Reagan conservative" I always loved that one. Soros Rulz!
Funny, many claim Ann Coulter to be a leading constitutional law scholar, too. Go figure.
[Edited by rasputin56] |
| 19th November 2006 07:01 PM |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
quote:
Riffhard wrote:
Maybe you need to reflect on Hillary Care (1994) for a moment Moonie! Huh,correct me if I'm wrong,but that plan is tantamount to Socialism,and it's absolutly all about Big Goverment and the redistribution of wealth! She is now threatening to trot that shit out again,and she's the hands down front runner for the Democrat nominee in 2008. Food for thought.
Riffy
Maybe you need to reflect on why you asked me to reflect on the above dodge/non-seq - what the fuck do I care what Hillary Clinton thinks? Reflect about George Walker Bush III and Medicaid/Medicare, etc. Don't tell me about it, just reflect on it, |
| 19th November 2006 10:54 PM |
|
|
| Brainbell Jangler |
quote:
Riffhard wrote:
You'd be wise to remember your roots when you start pulling your little immature name calling shit.
Here is a great take on the difference between liberals and conservatives written by someone that is much smarter than you. Mark Levin was the chief of staff to Edwin Meese in the Reagan Admin. He graduated magna cum laude,is one of the country's leading constitutional lawyers,and is president of the Landmark Legal Fondation. Which is to say that he would runs circles around you and any of your elitest,pompous,insipid,banal arguments!
Riffy
Not that you would actually read it,but here......
Of course I read it. After baiting you mercilessly for not reading the NIH site on stem cells (which you apparently still haven't read), it would be inconsistent and hypocritical of me not to. Inconsistency and hypocrisy are traits I leave to your friends such as Limbaugh and his "intellectual" flacks like Levin.
I'm sorry, but I'm not convinced that "Dr." Levin is smarter than I am. He earned his Juris Doctorate at Temple; I got mine at Harvard. I'm quite sure that if Levin had been able to get into Harvard, he wouldn't have gone to Temple. And I don't see what proof of intelligence working for Ed Meese is. You must understand that "smarter than Riffy" is not the same thing as "smarter than Brainy." You shouldn't measure my intelligence by the fact that I bother debating with you. And please cite one legitimate constitutional scholar (political hacks like Robert Bork don't count) who has any respect for Levin.
As for the transcript itself, I am not inclined to take the time to point out all its falsehoods. The suggestion that liberals wanted us to lose the Cold War, or the Iraq war for that matter, or that we want the terrorists to win, is false, shameful and unscrupulous. It is the sort of blatant disregard for the truth which helped the Republicans lose the election. And if only liberals think victory is impossible in Iraq, then Henry Kissinger is now a liberal.
Liberals want to burn down the churches and imprison conservative leaders without trial? And you take this person seriously? You are worse off than I suspected. Are you SURE you're not Al Franken?
"Immature name-calling shit"? You mean like making fun of Carl Levin's glasses or calling the new Congressional leadership "boobs"? Or mocking the name of Congressman Anthony Weiner (the only politician known to have received a contribution from Jon Stewart)? Nancy Pelosi is a boob but Trent "We Shoulda Elected the Segregationist" Lott is some sort of genius? Jesus, save us from your followers!
What you don't realize is that I had the good fortune of attending law school with many very brilliant conservatives, a lot of them demonstrably smarter than I. Some were actually Calvinists; I had no idea Calvinists even existed in the late 20th Century. I enjoyed many heated but civil debates with them, with Federalist Society members, with Air Force officers and others whose opinions differed markedly from my own. In fact, I was fairly well-known as a leftist who enjoyed discourse with right-wingers. But these were SMART righties, not half-witted blowhards (like the guy on the "right", for example):
|
| 19th November 2006 11:27 PM |
|
|
| StarvinMarvin |
I thought this was a fucking Rolling Stones message board???!!!! Now, ask yourselves the following question: would Keith Richards give a rat's ass about American constitutional law? Of course he wouldn't - it has nothing to do with rock 'n roll. In fact, such circular, meaningless debates are the ANTITHESIS of rock 'n roll. Do you people have any idea how pathetic you sound??!!! This thread is lame, and must be vanquished!!!
[Edited by StarvinMarvin] |
| 20th November 2006 12:05 AM |
|
|
| Brainbell Jangler |
quote:
StarvinMarvin wrote:
I thought this was a fucking Rolling Stones message board???!!!! Now, ask yourselves the following question: would Keith Richards give a rat's ass about American constitutional law? Of course he wouldn't - it has nothing to do with rock 'n roll. In fact, such circular, meaningless debates are the ANTITHESIS of rock 'n roll. Do you people have any idea how pathetic you sound??!!! This thread is lame, and must be vanquished!!!
[Edited by StarvinMarvin]
I don't think you give Keith enough credit. Perhaps you're confusing him with Alice Cooper, who is bright enough but inveterately anti-intellectual (like all good Americans). Keith is a Brit, owns an impressive library, and quite possibly has read about the American constitution. And we all know that Keith's constitution is legendary.
 |
| 20th November 2006 12:18 AM |
|
|
| StarvinMarvin |
quote:
Brainbell Jangler wrote:
I don't think you give Keith enough credit. Perhaps you're confusing him with Alice Cooper, who is bright enough but inveterately anti-intellectual (like all good Americans). Keith is a Brit, owns an impressive library, and quite possibly has read about the American constitution. And we all know that Keith's constitution is legendary.
I am giving Keith "credit" when I suggest that he would find this thread to be objectionable to all things rock and roll. Since when did the study of American constitutional law become an "intellectual" exercise, anyway?
All kidding aside, I just don't see why anyone would want to waste their time debating inconsequential crap like this. I'm not anti-intellectual, but I do object to people talking out of their asses in an effort to "dazzle" others with their "intellect" |
| 20th November 2006 12:36 AM |
|
|
| Brainbell Jangler |
quote:
StarvinMarvin wrote:
I'm not anti-intellectual, but I do object to people talking out of their asses in an effort to "dazzle" others with their "intellect"
Identify the source of the following dazzlingly intellectual quotation:
"Dreams are a great inspiration for the lowliest rock & roll writer to the greatest playwrights. Chaucer was a great one for dreams. He was a great one for explaining them and making fun of the astrological explanations. He used to take the piss out of most of them, but some of them he took seriously. Shakespeare, too, knew a lot about early English witchcraft and religion, and Chaucer had some sort of similar knowledge. Today we have psychiatrists to interpret dreams. . . . I've read a lot of Jung, and I would have gone to see him because he was interesting."
 
[Edited by Brainbell Jangler] |
| 20th November 2006 01:06 AM |
|
|
| StarvinMarvin |
i dunno...is it Keef? |
| 20th November 2006 01:46 AM |
|
|
| Brainbell Jangler |
quote:
StarvinMarvin wrote:
i dunno...is it Keef?
Nope. Mick Jagger. Rolling Stone magazine interview with Jonathon Cott, June 1978. I couldn't find a copy of the much earlier Mick interview where he expressed dismay that people would think he was only interested in rock'n'roll and pointed out his habit of reading and his interest in ancient history and comparative religion.
This is what I love about the Rolling Stones. They rock as well (better) than anyone, yet one needn't be stupid or unread to enjoy them, in contrast to many other rockers. |
| 20th November 2006 03:20 AM |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
quote:
StarvinMarvin wrote:
I'm not anti-intellectual, but I do object to people talking out of their asses in an effort to "dazzle" others with their "intellect"
"Is our children learning?"
George Walker Bush III |
| 20th November 2006 05:19 AM |
|
|
| lotsajizz |
quote:
StarvinMarvin wrote:
I thought this was a fucking Rolling Stones message board???!!!! Now, ask yourselves the following question: would Keith Richards give a rat's ass about American constitutional law? Of course he wouldn't - it has nothing to do with rock 'n roll. In fact, such circular, meaningless debates are the ANTITHESIS of rock 'n roll. Do you people have any idea how pathetic you sound??!!! This thread is lame, and must be vanquished!!!
[Edited by StarvinMarvin]
fuckoff newbie
|
| 20th November 2006 06:44 AM |
|
|
| Jumacfly |
your signature sucks and so do you.
quote:
Riffhard wrote:
Well let's just start with Mark Levin. The guy was Edwin Meeses' Cheif of Staff afterall. He is an originalist and he is full blown proud conservative. The transcript that I posted was an excerpt from his show. What part of it do not agree with? Liberals want the goverment to be much bigger. True? Yes! Liberals want redistribution of wealth. True? Huh,duh! The liberals want America do deny our Judeo/Christian origins. True? Of course! Liberals are lobbying for US Constitutional rights for terrorists. True? You're goddamned right they are! Every other topic he touches on is true as well.
He also defines the core beliefs of conservatism,but somehow you dismissed that as if he wasn't speaking for you. So,I ask again,are you really a conservative? Or are you just saying that you are so your hatered of Bush plays better?
Riffy
|
| 20th November 2006 07:01 AM |
|
|
| lotsajizz |
there's riffy, building bonds of international brotherhood like all of his political ilk....
|
| 20th November 2006 07:22 AM |
|
|
| Jumacfly |
quote:
lotsajizz wrote:
there's riffy, building bonds of international brotherhood like all of his political ilk....
LOL  |
